Facts about the NT Bible

by Amazing 46 Replies latest jw friends

done4good

Jim, LT, Lil, excellent information!
j
uninformed

Jim,
Very fascinating reading. Good job.
Sure brings up a lot more questions than it answers.
Brant
Leolaia

I don't even think the word "universal" was used in the first century at all. It was a term used later on but just to identify all those in the Christian faith.
lovelylil....It was used by Ignatius of Antioch in ca. 110-117 to refer to the church (Smyrnaeans 8), and Ignatius was certainly active in the late first century AD, so it very well may have been used in the late first century (our sources are pretty thin). You are correct that it was used to describe the universality of the church (as opposed to its orthodoxy).
Narkissos
Hey Ross, seems like even in history you're a Reformer
from 33 - 65AD there was only a rather small sect that was called "the Way", later to be named "Christianity";
James, Cephas, Apollos, Paul, John... all one church?
between 65 - 400 AD it was growing and exploring its understanding of theology and struggling to keep agreeable;
Well, if the Ebionites, Gnostics, Marcionites, Montanists etc. do not count...
between 400 - 1000AD there was a unification into one denomination, with a few dissenters;
What about the Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian churches (not to mention the Arians who evangelised a large part of Europe)?
between 1000 - 1600AD there were only two almost identical denominations and most of the main dissenters had folded;
and since 1600 there was a failed attempt to reform the RC Church that led to schizm after schizm down to our day.
Hate to tell you you are nearly one century late on the... Reformers
Sola scriptura: the Achilles' heel of Protestantism?
lovelylil

Thank you Leolaia for that reference. Lilly
Amazing

Hi Little Toe,

Tis a bit of an RC-biased thread there, Jim, so you'll excuse me (I hope) if I address the balance somewhat.
No bias is intended ... because had the Baptists, or Angelicans first developed the Bible, my post would have refelected that. Because I attend the Catholic Church does not mean that the historical facts are baised. I posted material similar to this prior to reconciling with the Church. I knew some of it as a JW, and would have made similar commentary.
As Didier alludes to, the King James Version contains the same books as the Douay. Further the JWs don't claim that the Protestants further corrupted the Bible, being content to accept that it was an improvement to have a Bible in English, instead of confined to Latin.
Correct, the KJV did contain the sames books for about two years ... then the KJV in its second edition removed six books. And yes, having the Bible written in one's language is an improvement.
On the point of authentic teaching, surely you're not going to sidestep the fact that the Reformers were Catholic Priests with an RC education and all the Orthodox documents available to them? These weren't unlearned men, and the schizm occured within the [RC] church, not as an assault from without.
Agree ... the Reformation did happen for a reason. But it was primarily Martin Luther that kicked off the Reormatin. The Angelicans were not started by Priests, but by King Henry. I am not sure that Calvin was a Priest. Had the Church behaved mor like the Orthodox, then there may not have been a ned for a Reformation. I think I have been honest on this point several times.
Given that this was a period of time when all sorts of wacky scientific beliefs were sustained by the religious (RC) authorities, I'm sure you'll agree that there has actually been progress, rather than regress in the advancement of thought, and this was bound to have an affect on theology as well. While there are some denominations that eschew solid doctrine and theology, this is not representative of the whole group.
Agree for the most part.
Scottish Reformed Presbyterianism has been one bulwark of learning that does not simply change doctrine at whim, and has been responsible for some of the greatest theological minds worldwide (or at least in the last 400 years). This is also to be expected, given its RC roots, even if there is a modern antipathy to said roots. It also had a system of church government that is rooted in Pastors, Presbyters and Deacons, with congregations, councils and synods related to one another, rather than "independant". In fact the only thing it is lacking is a "Holy See", which it holds in common with the Greek Orthodox.
Good point.
As a further sidebar to the Reformed churches, while they hold to the canon of 66 books being inspired, they also acknowledge that there is some merit in the "subordinate standards" of other documents and books, including the Apocrypha and Creeds. You will find many of the "Divines" refering to them.
Correct ... and similar to the Orthodox.
Just my 2p - no skin lost
Your 2 cents have good value to me ...and yes ... no skin lost.
between 400 - 1000AD there was a unification into one denomination, with a few dissenters;
Incorrect. The Church started gradually dividing between East and West, along the lines of the eastern and western Roman Empire. The Greek speaking Church dominated in the east and the Latin Church we all know and love dominated in the west. The schism took on more momentum by the 5th and 6th century, and the church was all but divided by the 8th century. So, the schism in 1054 AD was merely an event that confirmed what took place over many centuries.
Jim Whitney
Amazing

LovelyLil,
I don't even know where to begin. You seem to be an expert on the Roman Catholic faith and sure copied lots of information right from thier books.
I am not an expert on the RCC. I was talking about the Bible. Which "books" did I copy? I only cited a few online sources.
However, I must strongly disagree with you that the Bible is inspired because the RC church first declared it was.
I never stated it that way. All I said was the the RCC was the first to declare the NT as inspired. I did not in any way imply that its inspiration required their declaration. If we debate, we need to be careful about undersdtanding what is really being said.
The Bible is inspired becasue God's word first declared it as such. He does not need any man-made organization to declare what he already declared in his word. The RC assertion that the world owes it to them for giving us the Bible is utter rubbish and it is the way the Church continues to try to assert its authority over all Christians.
This is where your understanding of historical fact falls on its face. No where will you find a statement in the NT that declares itself inspired. The closest is Paul said about all scripture being inspired. However, at that time, the NT did not exist. Paul was referring to the OT. I did not get into what the world owes the Church. You are introducing issues that I did not raise, and will not raise. Please stick to what I have said in debates with me.
The term Catholic back in the Apostles day meant "universal" only, but now it is used by the RC as a denominational distinction.
Leolaia properly corrected your incorrect ststement of history. Further, St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch for 40-years, groomed directly by the Apostle Peter, and personal friend of the Apostle John referred to the Church as catholic in an institutional sense. These facts are confirmed by independent verification by non-Catholic historians.
The RC of today is not anything like the universal church of the Apostles day which included all those who had faith in Christ and was loosely organized, mostly in private homes.
Mostly in private homes is also not historically factual. They met in sunagogues until they they were booted. Yes, they met in homes too ... because they were small and did not have church buildings yet. They also met in caves and catacombs. Once persecution ended during Constantines time, they build churches. Meeting in private homes or synagogues or other places is irrelevant to whether they were organized and and Catholic.
The RC's assertion that they are the only true Church and the setting up of their hierarchy began several hundreds of years after the death of the Apostles. And the catholic council that put together the Book we today know as our bible, caused more problems than it reconciled.
Again, your knowledge of history is lacking on this issue. The heirarchy was well established by the Apostles. The earlier example given of St. Ignatius being grromed by St. Peter to assume the Holy See at Antioch is solid history. He served as Bishop before being taken to Rome to die as a Martyr in an arena of lions. If one reads his works without knowing when they were written, one comes away thinking that he was a Catholic Priest.
Secondly, it was not a Catholic Council that put the NT Bible together ... it was St. Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 392 AD. Rather than cause problems, he created the Latin Vulgate, which has served as a stable source reference for 1600 years since.
While I do agree with you that Christ has Always been with his church through the power of the Holy Spirit, that Church is NOT the RC of today. It is NOT any church organization, it is the individuals with faith in him alone.
In principle I have agreed with this noion all along ... except that I also accept the Catholic Church as the historic church because in fact that is what it is. Whether it has always taught truth, or behaved correctly is another matter. You are debateing issues that I have not raised nor contended. By calling the Church the historic Church, I am merely acknowledging that facts of history, and not promoting it as the only true way.
However, there are problems with the claims that the true Church is the invisible nebulous body scattered through all the various denominations. I will address that in my next post on the topic of religion.
The Bible is NOT a Catholic book and is for all believers in Christ no matter what denomination they are in, or even if they choose not to belong to any denomination.
The NT Bible is a Catholic compilation, a Catholic detemination, established by Catholic criteria. If you feel that it is enough, that is great, Catholics agree with you. However, if you are to be historically and intellectually honest, then why not read and study all the Gospels and Epistles and determine for yourself which is canonical and inspired and which is not. After all the Catholic Church is nothing but a bunch of .... you fill in the blank.
The RC is just another man made denomination that divides the body of Christ instead of uniting it.
Untruthful.
And the Bible is only one way for believers to get to know God.
Untruthful and historically dead wrong. The NT Bible just did not exist in such a way to fit your fantasy. Try again.
Even if we never had an "official" book called the Bible, we had plenty of writings to read from fellow believers in God, if we chose to. God primarily works with believers through his spirit and not through the words in the Bible anyway.
Contradiction to your above sentance that says the Bible is the only way to get to know God. Which is it?
A great article on the RC's claims about its authority and giving the world the Bible can be found here; http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm While I have come to the same conclusion years ago that the author of the above article does, he puts it in words in a better way then I can.
When I get some time next week, I will read this and some other links recommended to me.
Inspite of your incorrect assertions, I consider you and your Church Christian ... and I make no judgments.
Pax Vobiscum,
Jim Whitney
RAF

It seems that I've read here and there that the NT is not inpired by God but that the OT is? (did I really understood that statement?)
If yes: What would be the difference in between being inspired by God and being inspired by the holly spirit?
Even if you read the OT (example : genesis from Moses) even if you believe that it have been inspired (how could it be totally accurate) you realise that in being inspired I guess he put it the way he understanded it or lets say understandable at that periode of time I guess that's why to me periode of time and culture get a bit too much into it in many ways for many reasons - and those reasons are the reasons why they couldn't be written in an other way)
And more we are advanced in the time more we have knowlege at the same age (I mean more our culture is advanced) ... but scriptures like the bible can't be rewritten - I mean the originals. So that is a probleme to take in consideration when read it.
The WTBS likes to use OT a lot and I guess that I know why!
amazing : Yes they do. I am cusious as to what you thnk on why they do.
Well I guess (it's only my opinion and always only my opinion) it is because the OT talks a lot about immediate reaction from God... it keeps the fear/any guilt awake permanently (mind control strategy) – so if you are not doing what they tell you to do you feel bad if you really think that are God’s chanel.
lovelylil

Jim,
LT already corrected my notion that you were stating the RC first declared the entire bible inspired, he cleared up the point that they were the first ones to declare the NT inspired. So I opologize for that.
But even so, they cannot take credit for giving the world the Bible. God inspired the prophets and others to write an account of creation, God's dealings with mankind and his people, and prophecies for the future regarding Christ and the future of the world (OT). And the NT writers wrote about the life and ministry of the perfector of the Christian faith, Jesus Christ. With the main purpose of proving he was the Messiah promised long ago by the prophets. And they also gave personal experiences of themselves and those in the early church and wrote letters of encouragement to each other. They also wrote about the future return of Christ, and the future hope of all Christians.
God's own people, including the NT writers did all this way before the RC was even in its infancy. And the RC's thinking that somehow THEY were needed to organize all these writings into one book for Christians, is just ludicrous. The early Christians passed these scrolls around just fine without the RC which did not fully come into existance until hundreds of years after the Apostles. Now, I am not saying it was wrong for them to put these writing together or that I don't appreciate them doing this. But I am not giving them any undeserved credit for it either. The credit for it really should go to God. And another thing is that the RC after putting the books together for a long time did NOT even permit the layman (non clergy) to read or interpret it. If anything instead of helping to spread God's word to everyone, they tried to monopolize it, and keep it to themselves. Even today, they still believe it is a Catholic book and only THEY can interpret it properly. They assert this because they will to place the RC's authority over all believers.
Leolaia did cite a reference to the name "universal church" being coined as early as the latter part of the 1st century but also upheld my belief that this term applied to the "universality" of the church and not a denomination as it is applied to today.
The books I am talking about you copying from are the histories of the RC church. You verbatim repeat the the history the RC Church states about themselves. A history that does not stand up the way the RC tells it if you actually do the research.
I firmly maintian my stance that regardless what the RC says, you do not have to belong to any denomination to be a Christian in the church for the Church are the believers united by faith in Christ, and bound together not by any traditions, doctrines of men, etc. but by the Holy Spirit of God. The idividual members of Christ's church are spread through out the whole world and can be found in every denomination.
And the RC's teaching that they are the ONLY true Church on earth is reminisant of the WT, Mormoms and all other legalistic, high control groups.
With this being said, I will not take up anymore of your time. I know you have many others to reply to in this thread. Lilly
LittleToe

Didier:I confess, I over-simplified into general epochs to make a point. I primarily concentrated on European influences, without stating such
The reason I kept the 33-65 era together is because, although there were various trains of thought, they did manage to keep cohesive enough that outsiders still saw them all as Christians without denominational distinction. That doesn't get around the "I belong to Apollos, I belong to Paul" comments, but Paul does seem at least to attempt to heal some of that developing rift.
Jim:
You have indeed been entirely honest. What I refer to as "bias" is mostly reflected in tone rather than content. I find particular amusement in it because I get to hear plenty of anti-RC rhetoric from my Protestant friends. Its interesting hearing both sides of the debate with no particular prediliction.
While I accept that there were six books dropped from the KJV, these weren't from the NT. They were OT books, and since your thread is specifically about the NT, it is to that portion of the Bible that I direct my comments.

Facts about the NT Bible

Share this